Sunday, April 28, 2019

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day: Revisiting Islam’s Greatest Slaughter of Christians

Today, April 24, marks the “Great Crime,” that is, the genocide of Christians—mostly Armenians but also Assyrians—that took place under the Islamic Ottoman Empire throughout World War I.  Then, the Turks liquidated approximately 1.5 million Armenians and 300,000 Assyrians.

Most objective American historians who have studied the question unequivocally agree that it was a deliberate, calculated genocide:

More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse.  A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years [more than double the amount of time the invading Islamic Turks had occupied Anatolia, now known as “Turkey”] lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century. 

At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000….  Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors, denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.

Similarly, in 1920, U.S. Senate Resolution 359 heard testimony that included evidence of “[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death [which] have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages.”

In her memoir, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described being raped and thrown into a harem (consistent with Islam’s rules of war).  Unlike thousands of other Armenian girls who were discarded after being defiled, she managed to escape. In the city of Malatia, she saw 16 Christian girls crucified: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross,” she wrote, “spikes through her feet and hands, only their hair blown by the wind, covered their bodies.”  Such scenes were portrayed in the 1919 documentary film Auction of Souls, some of which is based on Mardiganian’s memoirs.

Whereas the genocide is largely acknowledged in the West, one of its primary if not fundamental causes is habitually overlooked: religion.  The genocide is usually articulated through a singularly secular paradigm, one that factors only things that are intelligible from a secular, Western point of view—such as identity and gender politics, nationalism, and territorial disputes. Such an approach does little more than project modern Western perspectives onto vastly different civilizations and eras.

War, of course, is another factor that clouds the true face of the genocide.  Because these atrocities mostly occurred during World War I, so the argument goes, they are ultimately a reflection of just that—war, in all its chaos and destruction, and nothing more.  But as Winston Churchill, who described the massacres as an “administrative holocaust,” correctly observed, “The opportunity [WWI] presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race.”  Even Adolf Hitler had pointed out that “Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.”

It’s worth noting that little has changed; in the context of war in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, the first to be targeted for genocide have been Christians and other minorities.

But even the most cited factor of the Armenian Genocide, “ethnic identity conflict,” while legitimate, must be understood in light of the fact that, historically, religion accounted more for a person’s identity than language or heritage.   This is daily demonstrated throughout the Islamic world today, where Muslim governments and Muslim mobs persecute Christian minorities who share the same race, ethnicity, language, and culture; minorities who are indistinguishable from the majority—except, of course, for being non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

As one Armenian studies professor asks, “If it [the Armenian Genocide] was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?”

Indeed, according to a 2017 book, Year of the Sword: The Assyrian Christian Genocide:

[The] policy of ethnic cleansing was stirred up by pan-Islamism and religious fanaticism.  Christians were considered infidels ( kafir).  The call to Jihad, decreed on 29 November 1914 and instigated and orchestrated for political ends, was part of the plan” to “combine and sweep over the lands of Christians and to exterminate them.”   As with the Armenians, eyewitness accounts tell of the sadistic eye-gouging of Assyrians and the gang rape of their children on church altars. According to key documents, all this was part of “an Ottoman plan to exterminate Turkey’s Christians.

To understand how the historic genocide of Armenians and Assyrians is representative of the modern-day plight of Christians under Islam, one need only read the following words written in 1918 by President Theodore Roosevelt; however, read “Armenian” as “Christian” and “Turkish” as  “Islamic,” as supplied in brackets:

the Armenian [Christian] massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey [the Islamic world] is to condone it… the failure to deal radically with the Turkish [Islamic] horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.

Indeed, if we “fail to deal radically” with the “horror” currently being visited upon millions of Christians around the Islamic world—which in some areas reached genocidal proportions—we “condone it” and had better cease talking “mischievous nonsense” of a utopian world of peace and tolerance.

Put differently, silence is always the ally of those who would liquidate the “other.”  In 1915, Adolf Hitler rationalized his genocidal plans, which he implemented some three decades later, when he rhetorically asked: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

And who among today’s major politicians speaks—let alone does anything—about the ongoing annihilation of Christians by Muslims, most recently (but not singularly) seen in the Easter Sunday church bombings of Sri Lanka that left over 300 dead?


Born That Way? Research Says No

Transgenderism's "born the wrong way" claim is undercutting the homosexual lobby.

The argument that homosexuals were “born that way” — that their orientation should be viewed as an immutable characteristic rather than a chosen behavior — has long been the primary justification for the extension of nondiscrimination laws to include an individual’s “sexual orientation.” However, as the sexual revolution has continued its crusade to destroy all traditional norms, the rise of transgenderism and the concept of “gender fluidity” has ironically undercut the whole “born that way” argument.

A recently published analysis by Peter Sprigg, a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, finds, “Evidence Shows Sexual Orientation Can Change.” Sprigg points out that:

The truth is, “sexual orientation” is a multi-faceted concept, involving a combination of attractions, behaviors, and personal identity. These four studies all demonstrate that significant change in each of the elements of sexual orientation is possible. The percentage changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality ranged from 13% to 53% (while the percentage changing from heterosexuality to homosexuality ranged only from 1% to 12%). In one survey of “same-sex attracted respondents,” up to 38% of men and 53% of women “changed to heterosexuality” in only a six-year period.

Confirmation of this has come from a surprising source. Scholar Lisa Diamond (who herself identifies as a lesbian) has long studied and written about the “sexual fluidity” of women. In a 2016 article with her colleague Clifford Rosky, she declared, “Given the consistency of these findings, it is not scientifically accurate to describe same-sex sexual orientation as a uniformly immutable trait.”

As many Christians and conservatives have long pointed out, there is a tremendous difference between state of being and choice. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, those desiring to throw off the moral restraints of America’s historic Judeo-Christian culture sought out numerous ways in which to challenge those long-accepted norms. Homosexual behavior was long understood to be a matter of practice rather than an immutable human characteristic. As such it found very little acceptance within the broader culture. It wasn’t until the late 1980s and early 1990s that the broader culture began to acquiesce to the “born that way” mythology.

There was never any real biological basis for this change; rather as the emotive nonsense of “if it feels right, it is right” took hold within the American culture, the argument against homosexuality being a biologically innate characteristic lost out to the new “truth” of personal emotive experience. As a result, to question a person’s feelings became tantamount to questioning the legitimacy of their being.

But consistency has always been the Achilles heel of emotive-based reasoning, and nowhere has this been more evident than in the reaction by the Rainbow Mafia against those who have left the homosexual lifestyle. No matter their personal experience, the Rainbow Mafia loudly ridicules the possibility that these former practicing homosexuals are no longer homosexual. It is therefore interesting that the rise of transgenderism and its arguably more consistent commitment to the emotive ethic with its “born the wrong way” declaration has the Rainbow Mafia at loggerheads.

Suddenly, the primary justification for the recognition of homosexuality as a protected class based upon immutability is undercut. No longer can homosexuality be claimed as an immutable characteristic. Instead, it returns to what it always was: a choice.


Handshakes could be banned under new workplace rules to avoid expensive sexual harassment claims, an expert has said

Handshakes could be banned under new workplace rules to avoid expensive sexual harassment claims, a UK expert has said.

Kate Palmer, an associate director of advisory at human resources consultancy Peninsula, said employers may ban all forms of physical contact to avoid confusion about what kind of touch is appropriate.

Ms Palmer said the #MeToo movement had forced employers to think about implementing more “black and white” policies.

“Some employers may put a complete ban on physical contact,” she told Metro. “Whether that’s going too far or not is a question I would pose, because it’s contextual. Does shaking someone’s hand go too far? They may just say ‘no contact at all’ because there’s no grey area.”

She said a handshake is “probably safe” unless an employer bans it, then it is a rule that needs to be followed.

It comes as three out of four people want a complete ban on physical contact in the workplace, according to a recent survey of 2000 adults by Totaljobs.

Ms Palmer added putting a hand on someone’s back or giving them a hug when they are upset could be “too personal” and staff should be “mindful” of that kind of touch. She said the level of appropriate contact varies from person to person but also from industry to industry.

For example, patting someone on the back on a construction site may be more acceptable than if it was an office.

The associate director said employers should make it clear what their policies are.

She said added the workplace does extend outside the office — including leaving drinks or the Christmas party.

Ms Palmer said employers should remind staff to “be sensible, but don’t cross the line”.


Cousins, aged five and six, are tasked with navigating their way around London with no adults in daring TV experiment

Frankly, to any modern responsible parent, it sounds tantamount to child abuse.

Who in their right mind would bring a five-year-old boy — and one who has never even been to a big city — to London, put a map in his hand and wave him off?

Who would leave this child — able to distinguish his left from his right, but only just — outside the Imperial War Museum and tell him to find his own way to the London Eye, by bus?

His only companion will be his cousin, who is also five. Actually, it would be considered highly neglectful, were it to happen for real. London bus drivers are instructed to alert the authorities if they suspect a young child is travelling alone.

This situation would be a Code Red, in London Transport speak, and the police would be called.

That they didn’t in this case was because it was a meticulously planned social experiment, for an ITV show investigating how much freedom we give our children — and whether they could benefit from more.

In this particular case, seven children (three groups, aged from four to seven) were set the task of getting themselves across the busy capital unaided.

Planet Child, hosted by doctor twin brothers Chris and Xand Van Tulleken, contrasts the freedom given to children in other parts of the world with the rather wrapped-in-cotton-wool existence British children have.

Are we too protective? We are reminded that most British kids are so heavily supervised that they spend less time outdoors than prison inmates.

In the show, we find out how other cultures do it. We meet a six-year-old in Tokyo who routinely travels alone across the city to get to school.

In Namibia, we are introduced to a seven-year-old and his five-year-old brother who walk miles from the safety of their village, not an adult in sight. They may not have to negotiate traffic, but they do have to be alert to wild dogs and elephants.

Another world? Certainly, in the UK, our parenting style is much more hands-on.

‘I think we were interested in the fact that children get treated very differently around the world,’ admits Dr Xand. ‘We wanted to see if the assumptions we make about parenting in the UK could be challenged.’

Dr Chris adds: ‘It’s about kids and how they behave. We provoke them and put them in weird situations — and we’ve found it’s surprising how they respond.’

In Planet Child, children are asked to take part in a range of experiments, from climbing trees to going shopping, to assess their attitude to risk and their ability to cope without adult supervision.

The London experiment is the most radical. So how do the children get on?

Well little Kieran Robinson and his cousin Rita, who live on a farm in rural Yorkshire, almost fail at the first hurdle when they succumb to the lure of the play area in the Imperial War Museum Gardens.

At the point where the production crew think they should be boarding the allotted bus, the pair — oblivious to any idea of timetables — are having a whale of a time on the slides.

What happens when they do finally leave? Well, your heart is in your mouth watching the two little figures heading into the heaving city streets, and trying to find a particular bus stop.

They ask a lady at the bus stop for help. Clever? Or downright worrying, given our preoccupations with Stranger Danger?

Of course, the children were never in any actual danger during the filming. Their parents had been asked to allow them to take part with full assurances that they would never be entirely alone — although, crucially, the children were not told this.

The London bus they would be getting on was rigged with cameras which would follow their every move. Adult ‘minders’ would be there, at a distance, posing as passengers.

At the first sign the children were distressed, they would quickly intervene.

Nonetheless, it makes for tense viewing. Perhaps the most astonishing thing is that the adults never have to step in. The children really aren’t fazed by the task.

There are a few bumpy moments. They aren’t told when to get off the bus, and there are some panicked little faces as they see the London Eye come into view, then go out of sight again as the bus follows its route.

As a viewer, it’s excruciating. How can these kids possibly negotiate all this?

Without giving too much away, they do — much to their delight, and the adults’ astonishment. They just got on with it, admits Dr Xand. ‘Left to their own devices, they do what they are asked to do.’

What about their parents, who were not able to follow their children’s progress on camera and had to rely on updates from the film crew? Suffice to say, they were all a bag of nerves.

‘I spent a lot of the time thinking: “What have we done?”’ admits Laura Robinson, Kieran’s mum.

‘Having grown up on a farm, Kieran maybe has more freedom than most. He can go out and play in the fields. But although he’s very independent, he’s never been to anywhere bigger than Skipton, and even then I won’t let go of his hand.’

Waving him off in London was something else. ‘I was worried about the traffic. The crew kept us updated with how they were getting on — “They’ve got on the bus now”; “They are fine” — but our hearts were still in our mouths. When we saw their heads bobbing towards us at the London Eye, I was so relieved.’

Interestingly, while some of the parents involved were reduced to tears during the experiment, none of the children was.

There were other experiments that weren’t quite so epic, but fascinating nonetheless.

One takes place in the Roses’ garden. An assault course is set up for Darcee and Judah and their little brothers. Then random equipment is left near a big tree — and the parents are asked to let the children get on with it. Cameras record what happens next.

‘There was a ladder,’ says Becky. ‘I knew immediately that the older two would put it against the tree. Then Darcee started to climb.’

Never had the older twins attempted to climb this tree. ‘And if they had, I would have gone running out to say “stop”. This time, Darcee got halfway up before she said: “It’s not stable”, which was a relief. It meant she was aware of the danger.’

Darcee continued, cautiously, until she was high in the tree. No one fell that day. There were no trips to A&E. But there were children punching the air with how much they had achieved.

Since then the Roses, like the other families, say they have made a concerted effort to allow the children a freer rein. ‘We’ve been blown away about how much it’s made us rethink things,’ says Tim.

Can we all learn from this programme? Dr Chris admits he is now less of a ‘helicopter parent’ with his own toddler daughter. ‘Now, I don’t assist her coming down a short flight of stairs because if she falls down two steps, she’s less likely to fall off a building or off a wall when she is confronted by those [as she will better assess the risks].’

Bottom line, we are unlikely to kill our children by letting them climb a tree; but we might be putting them in danger by failing to let them learn how to climb.

‘If you look at the statistics of child fatalities, the vast amount of incidents are around things like car accidents,’ says Dr Chris. ‘They don’t generally die in playgrounds, falling off swings.

‘We underestimate children constantly. They are capable of far more than we think.’



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

"Suddenly, the primary justification for the recognition of homosexuality as a protected class based upon immutability is undercut. No longer can homosexuality be claimed as an immutable characteristic. Instead, it returns to what it always was: a choice."

I do not often disagree with you, but there is a vast gulf between an immutable genetic characteristic and a lifestyle choice, with room for a great many other possibilities. Yes, sexual orientation (and gender, if not sex) if in the head. That doesn't mean that it is chosen. It may be imposed by trauma, by psychosis, or any one of a number of conditions that are beyond conscious control. It may be possible to work to change, but the effort involved goes beyond making a 'choice'.

Have the Politically Gay gone entirely too goddamned far? Sure. That's another argument. So long as adults confine themselves to other consenting adults, what foes on in their bedrooms is nobody's goddamned business. Further; if we wish homosexuals to choose stable lifestyles, then Gay Marriage is necessary. We can hardly object to their no settling down into stable relationships if we decide to recognize such relationships.

Now, the imbeciles who think it is "Gay Pride' to parade about in costumes that make it impossible to NOT imagine what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms are another kettle of (rancid) fish. If it isn't my business, don't MAKE it my business.